Friday, 23 March 2018

Just a brief one for now...

Afternoon all,

My usual response will follow later, but I did just want to drop this in for now, following a comment she made earlier today 
    “Lord Spencer‏ @lordspencer
    Replying to @K9Truth @Meadowuk and 2 others
    I read today that only 17% of files were released - ONLY 17%
    3:49 pm - 22 Mar 2018”

    This is false.

    What there is a set, big or small, of documents which the PJ deemed as UNIMPORTANT and decided to not include them in the PJ Files. False

    One thing people fail to understand is a methodology used by the Portuguese legal system when collating and compiling information to include in a process: the avoidance of repetition.False 

    That means if 2 documents say the same thing, one is excluded. To give an example, one document says that there were apples and another that there were apples and oranges, only the second one goes into the files as the issue of there being or not apples is covered. False 

    Let’s use an example that is in the files. There are 2 missing documents which we consider to be important but the PJ Files did not consider that to be so: Neil Berry’s initial statement and Mario Marreiro’s statement saying he saw Berry in the stairways of building 5A on the afternoon of May 3.False

    In the files we only have Berry’s rogatory statement

    The fact that there are missing the 2 documents we have referred, means that the PJ upon reading the rogatory and saw it provided all the information necessary about Neil Berry. False

    In his initial statement, Berry didn’t say anything that called the attention to the investigators. Him being in the building the PJ judged it to be clarified (in it is clear when and where it was alleged he was seen there, only missing the name of the person saying it and the PJ found it was a detail unnecessary to add another document to the files for) and so decided that by putting ONLY the rogatory all about Berry would be clarified. False 

    To the pile of UNIMPORTANT documents went his initial statement and Mario Marreiro’s one.

    In that pile there are also many of the originals of what we see translated in the files. The Gaspars’ statements being one of them.

    Legally, only what is in the PJ Files can be used. To be used documentation from the pile of UNIMPORTANT documents then there has to be a justification and which must be about something new that the PJ was not aware of when it archived the process. False 

    But, they are there. Not because there was something to hide. We think many are important, for example Mrs Fenn’s statement made when the PJ was going from door to door, and which we believe she said she saw and heard nothing relevant and so it went to the unimportant pile. False 

    We doubt very much about the accuracy or reliability of the 17% figure.

    But if the 17% figure turns out to be true, then it shows the amount of work that the PJ has put in this investigation. 83% of their work considered as unimportant shows that all that was possible to investigate (and that the UK, sorry, circumstances allowed to be investigated), was investigated. Irrelevant, false conclusion 

You have come up with some horseshit over the years, but this really is a corker. Everything you have said is wrong. 

Several categories of document were excluded from the published file. These included lists of offenders, police intelligence and any document which could be adjudged to reveal police operational details. Any document provided to the UK police or via Crimestoppers was also excluded. That is why those, and other, statements are missing. It is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the PJ reading the files and retaining one because of duplication of information, and I cannot understand how you dreamed up that idea. 

I am going to highlight in yellow the specific lies in that post, as it really deserves it. 

Why have I picked out this post? Because Textusa brags about her research, a claim which has always been laughable, but this is a good illustration, especially as the answer to the question posed is, and has always been, available in the files

No comments:

Post a Comment

Leave a message. If you're a conspiraloon, we might publish it, but we reserve the right to take the piss mercilessly. Have a nice day.

Messages not for publication can also be left, or you can email